On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu yinghai@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static unsigned long i915_stolen_to_physical(struct drm_device *dev) base -= dev_priv->mm.gtt->stolen_size; } else { /* Stolen is immediately above Top of Memory */
base = max_low_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT;
base = __REMOVED_CRAZY__ << PAGE_SHIFT;Huh?
Whole function:
Yeah, but can't we still just do 1LLU << 32 like other places? Or at least explain what was there before? It's gonna confuse the hell out of future readers of the code.
They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
Thanks
Yinghai